If I can afford $15 to eat out, I can afford $15.15 or $15.50. So the cost of it isn't really an issue. I'd probably roll my eyes at seeing it itemized and it might stop me from patronizing a place I'm ambivalent about. Probably wouldn't stop me from going if they were the only game in town or had something I really wanted though.

If two restaurants are equal except one 'advertises' an extra surcharge, which are you gonna go to?

Well, being that it's an "Anti-Obama" statement, then those people will flock to the restaurant in show of support of how Anti-Obama they are.

I doubt it. For most the mighty dollar has much more impact than politics.

You just said that their prices are the same though (at least I assumed that's what you meant by "equal"). There's no dollar to consider. One just tells you the portion of your bill that went to pay for Obamacare and the other doesn't. It's not a bad way to both explain why you had to raise your prices *and* make a political statement at the same time.

You give people too much credit. While the total price might end up the same, one has hidden its added cost and people will whine about the extra fee they can actually see on their bill, because that's what they do.

Except that you're raising awareness of the cost of Obamacare. That's the whole point. If your objective is to increase opposition to Obamcare by raising awareness of its cost, showing that cost on your customer's bills isn't a terrible way to do that. It's probably more effective than paying for political ads, and the great thing is that it doesn't cost you anything. You just program in one additional line on your PoS system and off you go. And if you then show other like minded businessmen this idea, they might pick it up and do the same.

Which is all fine and dandy, but they are still not providing any benefit to the customer as you made it seem by your "quiet" statement.

Jophiel wrote:

If I can afford $15 to eat out, I can afford $15.15 or $15.50. So the cost of it isn't really an issue. I'd probably roll my eyes at seeing it itemized and it might stop me from patronizing a place I'm ambivalent about. Probably wouldn't stop me from going if they were the only game in town or had something I really wanted though

This goes back to the tipping thread. He doesn't understand how to budget. If a slight increase of price breaks your budget, then you're probably spending too much to begin with. In any case, that increase could be budgeted.

If two restaurants are equal except one 'advertises' an extra surcharge, which are you gonna go to?

Well, being that it's an "Anti-Obama" statement, then those people will flock to the restaurant in show of support of how Anti-Obama they are.

I doubt it. For most the mighty dollar has much more impact than politics.

You just said that their prices are the same though (at least I assumed that's what you meant by "equal"). There's no dollar to consider. One just tells you the portion of your bill that went to pay for Obamacare and the other doesn't. It's not a bad way to both explain why you had to raise your prices *and* make a political statement at the same time.

You give people too much credit. While the total price might end up the same, one has hidden its added cost and people will whine about the extra fee they can actually see on their bill, because that's what they do.

It's not hidden. Restaurants and other retailers don't break down their billing by their expenses.

If and when they do, it's a gimmick. That's it. One establishment is 'advertising' ie spreading the good word that they're charging an extra surtax because....obama.

Except that you're raising awareness of the cost of Obamacare. That's the whole point. If your objective is to increase opposition to Obamcare by raising awareness of its cost, showing that cost on your customer's bills isn't a terrible way to do that. It's probably more effective than paying for political ads, and the great thing is that it doesn't cost you anything. You just program in one additional line on your PoS system and off you go. And if you then show other like minded businessmen this idea, they might pick it up and do the same.

Which is all fine and dandy, but they are still not providing any benefit to the customer as you made it seem by your "quiet" statement.

Jophiel wrote:

If I can afford $15 to eat out, I can afford $15.15 or $15.50. So the cost of it isn't really an issue. I'd probably roll my eyes at seeing it itemized and it might stop me from patronizing a place I'm ambivalent about. Probably wouldn't stop me from going if they were the only game in town or had something I really wanted though

This goes back to the tipping thread. He doesn't understand how to budget. If a slight increase of price breaks your budget, then you're probably spending too much to begin with. In any case, that increase could be budgeted.

I don't think alma is comparing the surcharge to a tip. I think Gbaji made an argument in another thread about how an extra buck on your tab might be the breaking point between being able to afford to go out and eat or not. The response there being that if a buck was going to topple your household finances, you probably shouldn't be trying to toe the brink of fiscal ruin by budgeting out your final discretionary pennies anyway.

Let's not forget that it's called the "Affordable Care Act". The claimed objective was to lower costs. I'd say that they failed quite miserably at that.

Really? Still shows massive cost savings in every model. Including the Heritage Foundation's "model". I'd say you failed quite miserably at knowing a ******* thing about it. Shocking.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

If and when they do, it's a gimmick. That's it. One establishment is 'advertising' ie spreading the good word that they're charging an extra surtax because....obama.

Really the first thing going through my mind was "that's really all it is?" Because that's a lot of wasted time fighting over something that added a few cents to a plate of food.

When I read about the hundreds of millions of dollars spent arguing over the legislation (I'm seeing about 500 million since 2010), I can't help but think we could have covered a lot of people with that money.

Really the first thing going through my mind was "that's really all it is?"

My first thought was "What is the quality of the restaurant?" After reading a few reviews (sans the recent knee-jerk additions), I was wondering why subpar places like this and Papa John's are the ones making a big deal about it. I figure it's a lot easier to blame Obama for their lousy profit margins than it is to provide higher quality service.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

The managing partner of a smallish accounting firm here on Long Island was quoted in an article recently, saying that it took him a frustratingly long period of time (he didn't say how long) but after all his research he was able to find a plan that met the ACA's requirements, with no reduction in coverage, and no cost increase.

gbaji wrote:

Let's not forget that it's called the "Affordable Care Act". The claimed objective was to lower costs. I'd say that they failed quite miserably at that.

Serious question and not meant to be contrary (meaning, I'm not going to get into a senseless debate), but wasn't the "affordable" part supposed to refer to the uninsured who were uninsured because insurance was unaffordable? Of course, I could be just another uninformed American. But at least I'm not an uninsured uninformed American.

____________________________

"the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering, April 1946.

Looking at a scan of the receipt, it looks so small and petty that it's hard to get upset. "20¢ so your employees can have health insurance? Two dimes? Well, okay I guess." Especially sitting under the state sales tax line item which dwarfs the ACA surcharge.

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

I don't think alma is comparing the surcharge to a tip. I think Gbaji made an argument in another thread about how an extra buck on your tab might be the breaking point between being able to afford to go out and eat or not. The response there being that if a buck was going to topple your household finances, you probably shouldn't be trying to toe the brink of fiscal ruin by budgeting out your final discretionary pennies anyway.

Yeah. That's what Alma keeps insisting I was saying. Complete with all sorts of the same "if one dollar breaks you, you shouldn't be eating out at all anyway" logic. The actual point I was making is that every penny of a bill affects the decision to pay it versus spending that money on something else. It's not about being able to afford it, period, but that as the cost rises for the same product (regardless of what it is) the likelihood you'd rather spend that money on something else instead increases. I could afford to eat out every single day if I wanted to. I don't, because I'd rather save the ten thousand or so dollars I'd spend a year doing that on something more useful and productive.

Most people make spending choices well before the point at which they physically can't afford something. Alma doesn't seem to grasp that though. He seems to think that everyone just looks at the money they have and the cost of something and if the former is more than the latter, they buy it. I suppose maybe some really stupid people manage their money that way, but most people don't.

Having said that, this has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. My point here is that it's not about people's purchasing choices at all, but about raising awareness of the cost of Obamacare. I keep saying this, and people keep responding with stuff like "But will this increase or decrease business at the restaurant chain?". I don't know, and honestly don't think that's much of a factor. IMO, the bigger point to the "gimmic" is to get people to realize that Obamcare affects the costs of things other than just the bill they pay for health insurance.

I want to know why they didn't want bread on their chili cheese dog, and why that prompted the ticket to encourage someone to see the server.

Usually something like that is a case of the guest wanting something not easily explained in the point of sale system and the point of sale requiring a modification be made before being able to note to not make before server can explain. Could be something as simple as cut in half or make it open face with only one side of the bun. In all likelihood, it was something not all that interesting.